Note: Public Acts 2007, 07-123, §
9, which created this offense, became effective October 1, 2007.

The defendant is charged [in count __]
with strangulation in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads
in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of strangulation
in the second degree when such person restrains another person by the neck or
throat with the intent to impede the ability of such other person to breathe or
restrict blood circulation of such other person and such person impedes the
ability of such other person to breathe or restricts blood circulation of such
other person.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Restrained another
by the neck or throatThe first element is that the
defendant restrained <insert name of complainant> by the neck or throat. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movement.

Element 2 - IntentThe second element is that the
defendant specifically intended to impede <insert name of complainant>'s
ability to breathe or to restrict (his/her) blood circulation. A person acts
"intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is
to cause such result. <See
Intent: Specific,
Instruction 2.3-1.>

Element 3 - Impeded breathing
or restricted blood circulationThe third element is that, acting with
that intent, the defendant impeded <insert name of complainant>'s ability
to breathe or restricted (his/her) blood circulation.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant restrained <insert name of
complainant> by the neck or throat, 2) (he/she) specifically intended to
impede <insert name of complainant>'s ability to breathe or to restrict
(his/her) blood circulation, and 3) (he/she) impeded <insert name of
complainant>'s ability to breathe or restricted (his/her) blood circulation.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
strangulation in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant
not guilty.

Commentary

Subsection (b) provides that "[n]o
person shall be found guilty of strangulation in the second degree and unlawful
restraint or assault upon the same incident, but such person may be charged and
prosecuted for all three offenses upon the same information. For the purposes of
this section, 'unlawful restraint' means a violation of section 53a-95 or
53a-96, and 'assault' means a violation of section 53a-59, 53a-59a, 53a-59b,
53a-59c, 53a-60, 53a-60a, 53a-60b, 53a-60c, 53a-61 or 53a-61a." See
State v. Graham S., 149 Conn. App. 334, 345, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 912
(2014) (when defendant convicted of strangulation, unlawful restraint, and
assault on the same facts, the strangulation conviction should stand).